The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

Quoting from this link:

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/20/opinion/la-oe-zelman-individual-mandate-20111120

The Supreme Court will rule next year on the constitutionality of the healthcare reform passed in 2010. But constitutionality notwithstanding, Republican opposition to the new law has been vigorous and consistent. In recent GOP presidential debates the candidates have been unanimous in condemning it, in particular objecting to the requirement that almost all Americans obtain health insurance or pay a penalty.

On the surface, Republican and conservative opposition to the new requirement seems perfectly logical. There is a long history of conservative preference for limited government and individual responsibility.

But scratching the surface of those principles reveals a murkier picture. There is a compelling conservative case for the requirements imposed under healthcare reform. Indeed, during the 1980s and early 1990s, many moderate GOP policymakers championed an individual mandate. For example, in 1993, Sen. John Chafee (R-R.I.) had 16 Republican co-sponsors, among them Kansas Sen. Bob Dole, for a reform proposal that included the mandate. President Clinton and other Democrats favored a requirement that employers provide insurance, and roundly rejected the notion that the requirement be shifted from employers to individuals.

The conservative case for an insurance requirement starts with the assumption that almost any responsible adult, and certainly one with a family, is going to get health insurance, at least so long as he can afford it. He may get it through an employer or purchase it himself. Unless one is extremely wealthy, the risks of not having insurance are simply too great. Thus, to the vast majority of responsible adults, the requirement to have insurance is no requirement at all — they already buy it. The reform simply imposes a penalty if they don't do what they would do anyway. Some may object in principle, but the actual effect on those now buying insurance is near zero.

OK, let's discuss this, and don't forget to take the poll.

_________________
Blessed Assurance, Jesus is mine

Oh what a foretaste of glory divine!

That depends on how you define "conservative."

If conservative means sensible, reasonable, and responsible, then sure, it's consistent.

If "conservative" refers to the currently-popular libertarian/authoritarian hybrid designed to primarily serve corporate interests then no, it's probably not consistent.

-Dan.

another topic filled with empty rhetoric...joy

"But constitutionality notwithstanding..." -- it's (lack of) Constitutionality is the whole pt

iluvatar -- somehow i think Webster won't be offering you a job any time soon

Arguably the insurance mandate is consistent with conservative principles, so much so that two Presidential candidates, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, have promoted it. No, not because they're closet liberals.

The subtitle of the opinion piece I've linked in the OP is entitled:

Would conservatives rather have government impose a financial requirement on people who choose not to buy healthcare, or have those who behave responsibly bear the financial burden of a few?

I would encourage anyone who is struggling with "constitutionality" issues to click on the link and read it, in its entirety. I say this because the constitution is not supposed to prevent the government from setting up policies that are fair to everyone.

_________________
Blessed Assurance, Jesus is mine

Oh what a foretaste of glory divine!

I voted: The health ins mandate is NOT consistent with conservative principles.



I can't help but wonder how everyone would feel about the "requirement" IF employers were Not required to provide this insurance; in fact, how about if employers who provide health insurance now were "requirement" to drop it and hire more employees (under the 'lets put Americans back to work act') instead.

Fair enough, Hattie.

But you'd buy health insurance anyway, right? Why not provide a tax credit for it? Our government can certainly incentivize desirable behavior -- they do it all the time.

_________________
Blessed Assurance, Jesus is mine

Oh what a foretaste of glory divine!

Where does the Constitution guarantee healthcare?
This is a typical L.A. Times liberal hit piece. I did not vote because the poll is scewed to gain the desired results rather than gain real perspective. (As most of this type of poll so often do.)

I do not agree with this opinion at all. But a question, If corporate interests are not at least marginally served where will the (economy driving) jobs they provide go?
Neither. I would rather the individual take responsibility for his/her actions.
I currently have a friend who's daughter broke her ankle in an accident. The surgery/hospital/care/rehab bill began at around $10,000.00 They had no insurance as he is a small-church pastor. The bill was negotiated down to $4500.00 and they have untill February to pay it. I know of several churches and individuals pitching in to help them pay for the proper care and treatment of my friends daughter. The Church, BTW, is looking into getting a health-care plan for their pastor because of this little incident. Funny, the big government didn't have to get involved in this situation at all!

_________________
Blessings,
Randy
Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The Net Bible Online

No; Leastwise not the way health insurance Policies are written for the private sector (individuals and families) today --- this WILL have to change; people should not have to hire a lawyer just to read and explain what is written to understand it. "Mandates" and/or "requirement" [u]must[/u] include insurance policies for Low or fixed income people/households --- the cost for basic health care should include dental care (yearly exams, ex-rays, fillings and extractions) and eyes (including yearly eye chart tests and basic eye-glasses, if needed) and be based on a percentage of annual income per household. If a person is paying for health insurance, there should be No out of pocket expense --- including doctors and basic generic Rx drugs if a prescription is needed. And NO Freebees or NO Mandates and/or requirements for anyone!!!

This is why I am sooo... angry about the health-care industry as a whole; including health insurance, and Obama's mandates and requirements on employers and/or individuals to pay for healthcare insurance coverage --- IT'S BIG BUSINESS!!! There is NO excuse for ANY healthcare to cost this much, NO excuse at all!!!
Sorry, this is a very sore subject for me and it has taken ALL my strength to keep my composer this far, therefore for your sake (and mine) I will bow-out of this discussion now.

In defense of the cost of the care the injury included a spiral fracture of the lower fibula which extended from the ankle up about 2 1/2 inches. Surgery and pins/screws were extensive. I cannot argue with much of this cost since every hospital, doctor, anesthesiologist, & nurse had better have insurance to cover litigation costs (which are not cheap) and, therefore they pass that cost on to the consumer/patient.

Litigation - another little known cog in this healthcare issue.

_________________
Blessings,
Randy
Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The Net Bible Online

NOT an excuse, IMHO!!!

I came back to ask: If you don't think this is nothing more than BIG BUSINESS gone totally out of control, tell me, what can you purchase, other than heath-care, that you do not get at the very least an estimate of what the final cost will be to you --- upfront?

Personally, I'm on a --- 'Lord, kill me or cure me' kick, because I have no intention of paying those prices and watch my family suffer financially for it. Even with paying 20% of the cost today it's totally outrageous; I won't pay it!!

Well Hattie, the fact that we have privatized healthcare, rather than single payer, is definitely an issue. But this issue wasn't created by the Affordable Healthcare Act - it already existed. Furthermore, the Affordable Healthcare Act imposes certain controls on premiums charged by private insurance companies, that require the premium amount to be justified by actual healthcare expenditures. (I believe it is 75% of every premium dollar.) This requirement adds more efficiency (by outlawing inefficiency and profiteering) to our healthcare premium payments. We will get more for our money, and the insurance companies will need to reduce their overhead to comply with this law. As quiet as it's kept, this is a big reason why the insurance companies don't like it - they want the mandate without the cap on administrative expenses and profit. But your post illustrates why these caps are most certainly needed, and they are absolutely to our benefit IMO.

_________________
Blessed Assurance, Jesus is mine

Oh what a foretaste of glory divine!

You don't hire professional services, do you? For that kind of work, $4500 is a bargain. Most any kind of freelancer bills out at at least $50-100/hr and that's for work that doesn't involve them providing much in the way of special equipment. Heck, now that I think of it, even the place I get my hair cut charges $50-150/hr (depending on who cuts your hair). I would certainly think that surgeons and other medical professionals would charge more than a girl at a hair salon or a guy with an iMac and a Wacom tablet.



This is one reason why health care should not be considered a market economy and why it should not be expected to be optimized by free market principles and policies. It's not just the lack of estimates that causes this to be true, but it's also the way information is exchanged (both parties do not have equal access to information), the way decisions are made (people typically do not go for the "good enough to get by" option, if one is even reliably available), and the timing of the decisions (you don't get to put off emergency surgery until you can get a groupon).

Now, if you want to make the case that health care should be socialized in such a way that everybody's covered, and costs are spread around so no one person is hit with a gigantic bill after an accident, well.... welcome to the fold.

-Dan.

It's not little known; conservatives won't let us forget about it.

Get hospitals and medical boards to do a better job of policing themselves and preventing errors, and then maybe we can talk about liability & tort reform. Until then, I want to know that a medical screwup isn't going to cost me a limb and leave me hanging with a piddly little check, while the incompetent doctor continues to make boatloads of money every year.

-Dan.

With the exception of an emergency where the patient is unable to choose a doctor/medical team, why would anyone in their right mind choose an "incompetent doctor"/medical team in the first place? Doctors are not some kind of Medical-Gods that can't make mistakes, therefore, it is the Patients responsibility to choose their own doctor and get all the information available for the best treatment available, including trusting the medical team choosing of said doctor. I see no need for most law suites against doctors --- as long as the Patient is given the right to choose their doctors/medical team and treatment for themselves --- knowing the best and worst outcome upfront; I say, there is NO Excuse for these type cost.